Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is my 42nd year on the Appropriations Committee. I think I have served longer than any Member, past or present. The Appropriations Committee was first created in 1867. I don't have any doubt that I have served with the greatest chairmen who have served on that committee since its inception in 1867. That was 133 years ago. I have served with Senators such as Carl Hayden of Arizona, Dick Russell, John Stennis, John McClellan, Allen Ellender, and Senator Hatfield. These were great chairmen. They had long service in the Senate. I served with all of them. But I have never served with a better chairman on the Appropriations Committee than the current chairman, Ted Stevens. I think he is a better chairman than I was. I don't say that idly. He works at the job all the time. He works hard. I support him in this request to the leaders. I don't happen to be a great fan of the treaty with China. I will have more to say about that later. But I am a great fan of getting these appropriations bills down to the President on time. When I was chairman, we were able to get all the appropriations bills passed before the beginning of the new fiscal year. I join my chairman in pleading with the leadership--and the leadership has been most cooperative on both sides--to help get these bills moved and into conference and down to the President. The chairman, Mr. Stevens, hit the nail right on the head when he said we don't need to have another wrangle with the President over appropriations bills right at the end of the session. That plays into the President's hands. I think all Senators are aware of the fact that I believe the legislative branch is the predominant branch, and was meant to be the predominant branch among the three equal and coordinate branches. I think it has the upper hand, if Members of the Congress will but will stand up for the Senate and its constitutional powers. I think it is important that we finish these bills because, when we wait until the end of the session, and we are left with an omnibus bill, the President wins every time. You may think you can beat the President in that deal. You can't do it. The President wins because he then has the upper hand. He has your back to the wall. Senators and House Members want to get out of here and go home. They have schedules to fill back in their districts and in their States. It plays into his hands if appropriation bills only reach him at the last minute. I don't like to play into any President's hands. I think most Members are very aware that we need to work with the President. But it is highly important we get these bills passed. Let the PNTR wait. Why be in such a hurry on that treaty? Why be in such a hurry? It would be better if we were to take a little more time and examine that treaty more carefully and consider what the ramifications of its approval may be. Last night we were able to get legislation adopted to create a national security commission. It will be a congressional commission. We will not have to depend upon the administration to tell us what impact that trade with China may have on our national security. We will have our own commission. It will be appointed by the joint leadership of both Houses. That commission will report to the Congress. I have a somewhat jaundiced eye when it comes to moving in such a big hurry to take up the China treaty. As far as I am concerned, it ought to go over until next year. Let's take another look at it. That is just one Senator's opinion. I plead with the leader--I say to this also to my own leader--to help us get these appropriations bills passed, to get them to conference, and then downtown. We can talk and wrangle and debate about the China treaty afterwards. I thank my chairman.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Abraham. This amendment would repeal the entire 18.4-cent Federal excise tax on gasoline for a five-month period. In my view, this amendment represents bad transportation policy, bad energy policy, and bad tax policy. The amendment would play political games with the American driving public by eliminating the Federal gasoline tax and reinstating it five months later, after the people have gone to the polls in November. The amendment would violate the trust that we restored to the Highway Trust Fund when we enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. It would, over the long run, put at risk billions of dollars of necessary investment in our Nation's highway infrastructure, while providing absolutely no guarantee that the consumer will see even one penny of this tax reduction at the gas pump. This will be the third time in four months that the Senate will vote on repealing some, or all, of the Federal excise tax on gasoline. Back on April 6th, the Senate adopted my amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that the Federal excise tax on gasoline should not be repealed on either a permanent or temporary basis. That amendment was adopted by a broad bipartisan vote of 65-35. That amendment stated explicitly that ``. . . any effort to reduce the federal gasoline tax or de-link the relationship between highway user fees and highway spending poses a great danger to the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund and the ability of the states to invest adequately in our transportation infrastructure.'' Just five days later, the Senate voted against the Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 2285, again on a bipartisan basis, by a vote of 43-56. That bill would have repealed 4.3 cents of the 18.4-cent gasoline excise tax. The Senate did the right thing back in April, when it rejected these dangerous proposals to take 4.3 cents of gas tax revenue out of the Highway Trust Fund. This amendment by Senator Abraham, however, is far more dangerous. Indeed, it is four times more dangerous than those proposals because this amendment would repeal the entire 18.4-cent gasoline tax for a five-month period and would deprive the Highway Trust Fund of more than $10 billion. I have heard it said that this amendment would in no way endanger the level of spending for our nation's highways. Indeed, some very odd language is included in this amendment. It is basically the same language that was included in S. 2285, which the Senate rejected back in April. That language sought to mandate that spending from the Highway Trust Fund be maintained at the level authorized in TEA-21, even though the revenue is not there to support those funding levels. This is a very neat sleight of hand indeed. But, does anyone truly believe that this is a workable approach over the long term? The chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senator Voinovich, clearly does not, I don't believe. My colleague, Senator Warner, who chaired the Surface Transportation Subcommittee during the debate on TEA-21, certainly does not. Together, Senator Warner, Senator Gramm, Senator Baucus, and I fought tirelessly for many months to restore the ``trust'' to the Highway Trust Fund. So, I implore all Members on both sides of the aisle to reject this plan that will compromise that trust. Mr. President, I believe this amendment is not just reckless transportation policy, it is reckless energy policy as well. These short-term, feel-good tax cuts cannot substitute for a comprehensive energy policy that decreases our dependence on foreign oil. The American people are not naive. They will see right through any proposal to eliminate a tax temporarily until after Election Day, the effect of which they may not even see, only to be followed by reimposition of the 18.4-cent gas tax a few months hence. Even the ``triple A''-- the association that represents no one but the people who pay the gas tax at the pump--opposes this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Susan Pikrallidas, vice president for public affairs of the American Automobile Association, in opposition to the Abraham amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. BYRD. In closing, the Senate has already rejected this policy twice this year. I ask Members to join in driving a stake right through the heart of this ill-conceived, politically motivated vampire of an amendment that would suck the lifeblood out of the highway trust fund. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Do we not wish to proceed on the vote on the amendment in the first degree, as amended?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank the clerk. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the China trade measure which passed the House eliminates the annual congressional renewal of most-favored- nation treatment of China, and gives China permanent normal trade relations with the United States. This legislation has not yet been scheduled for action on the Senate floor, yet there is already a concerted effort to defeat any amendments by Senators which might deviate from the provisions of the bill as passed by the House. The fear is that a different Senate version would require a conference committee, and another House vote, both of which may make it more uncertain that the legislation will be enacted this session. Given this situation, which is an obvious egregious deviation from the traditional role of the Senate in foreign affairs, those of us who believe that the House bill can be improved must find a way to pass separate legislation which still addresses matters of importance in the burgeoning U.S.-Chinese trade relationship. There is one particular area, in which I believe the House bill and the amendments passed to it, are silent, and cry out for some adequate treatment, and that is in the area of national security. The administration argued in getting enough votes for its China trade bill in the House, that it is in the national security interest of the United States to pass the bill. I do not believe that for one moment. That is quite an assertion given the brutal Communist dictatorship in China, which systematically violates the agreements it has signed with us, and which routinely pressures U.S. firms to hand over key technologies as the price for doing business in China. This is the same Chinese dictatorship which talks about financial war with the United States, and which periodically intimidates Taiwan with threats of invasion. This is the same Chinese dictatorship which hunts down dissenters, hunts down free expression, and religious organizations with a club. Despite this assertion, there is no mechanism to thoroughly and regularly assess the national security impacts on, and implications of, the developing trading relationship with China. The huge trade and dollar surpluses that are amassed by the Chinese Government and the tensions between the United States and China on trade and national security issues, as well as on human and labor rights, need informed and periodic review. There are those who argue that our annual debate over renewal of most-favored-nation treatment of China did not amount to much because we never failed to renew MFN. However, annual MFN review was of great importance to the Chinese Government, since it certainly provided a regular open window to expose questionable Chinese trading, human rights, military, and other policies to a wide audience. Such monitoring and regular reporting to Congress from a reliable source is particularly important in an era where massive and unbalanced trade flows are certain to continue, and where, because of China's membership in the WTO, U.S. bilateral leverage and congressional authority under the commerce clause have been severely reduced. I would contend that the U.S.-Chinese relationship is likely to be of enduring concern to this body. Surely, the national security implications of that relationship, the impacts of massive trade deficits which now approach some $70 billion a year, the voracious appetite of the Chinese Government for military technologies, and the pressures it brings on our Asian allies are important to us. The implications of systematic unfair trade practices by the Chinese Government, of dumping into our markets, of not enforcing and not complying with agreements they have signed with us, and of pressuring Western companies to hand over important technologies as a price for doing business in China and as a quid pro quo for being able to relocate and invest in China, should be of concern to the elected representatives of the American people. The chief Chinese imports from the United States are primarily sophisticated manufactured products, like aircraft, telecommunications equipment, and semiconductors. Many of these technologies have multiple uses, both civilian and military. China's development effort is heavily dependent on Western companies as sources of capital and technology. There are some who contend that the large surpluses, as well as the capital, and many technologies are being funneled to a concerted effort to fuel a military buildup which the Chinese could not otherwise muster. There are those who contend that we are unwittingly giving the Chinese the tools to intimidate Taiwan, our democratic friend, and our other Asian allies, such as Thailand, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. Chinese military officers have recently written about the need to practice financial war, cyber war, and other economic and technologically sophisticated means of affecting the security relationship with the United States. Given the technological prowess of the United States in prosecuting the Gulf War and the Kosovo conflict, the Chinese have been reportedly alarmed regarding the obsolescence of their military machine and their military practices. The standing armies, upon which they have traditionally relied, cannot perform effectively against the new weaponry demonstrated by the United States in those conflicts. There are those in China who believe that their long-term interests lie in competition and possibly confrontation with the United States, and thus in order to compete they must rapidly acquire a range of technologies and expertise that is only available from Western firms. Are we unwittingly supplying those factions in China with the means to confront us? Certainly our own self-interest would dictate that we need to monitor these trends systematically and periodically and that is the purpose of the Byrd-Warner amendment. I think that it is only prudent that we provide for an annual systematic review and a report to the Congress on the full range of national security implications engendered by the increased trade and investment relationship with China. The House has a commission in its China trade bill, an executive-legislative commission to monitor a staggering range of human rights and democracy-building reforms in China. It has a full plate of responsibilities. While this sort of monitoring is certainly important, no less important should be the existence of a congressional commission to focus on the national security relationship between our two nations. The President has argued that it is in our national security interest to further open and widen our trading relations with China. That proposition should be regularly tested by an independent commission, which has the narrow mandate of monitoring our growing bilateral relationship with an eye toward United States security concerns. The Congress last year created a 12-person commission, equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, to examine our growing negative trade balance. The Trade Deficit Review Commission will likely finish its work in a few months, with a report to the Congress and the President, on the implications of our global deficits, recommending new practices, institutions and policies. It has already conducted hearings and studies on the Chinese relationship. Mr. Warner and I suggest that this same commission is an appropriate tool, extended and refocused, to conduct an annual Chinese assessment and review. Such a refocused commission would serve as a good companion to the one proposed by the House bill on human rights and democratic reforms in China. Its existence and assessments would certainly help to repair the dangerous erosion of congressional involvement in, and leverage over, foreign commerce envisioned as essential to our national well being by the framers. It would help to replace congressional monitoring of China resulting from her accession to the World Trade Organization, in an area critical to the deeply rooted constitutional responsibilities of this body. That is the purpose of the amendment which Senator Warner and I and other Senators have offered. In summary, the commission would review the national security implications of our trade and investment relations with China, including the following elements: One, the portion of trade in goods and services dedicated by the Chinese Government to military systems; Two, an analysis of the statements and writings of Chinese officials bearing on the intentions of the Chinese Government regarding military competition with and leverage over the United States and its Asian allies; Three, the military actions taken by the Chinese Government over the preceding years bearing on the national security of the United States and its Asian allies; Four, the acquisition by the Chinese Government of advanced military technologies and systems through U.S. trade and Chinese procurement policies; Five, the use of financial transactions, capital flows, and currency manipulations to affect the national security of the United States; Six, actions taken by the Chinese Government in the context of the WTO which are adverse to U.S. national security interests; Seven, an overall assessment of the state of any security challenges to the U.S. by the Chinese Government and whether the trend from previous years is increasing or declining; and finally, the commission would also provide recommendations for action, including any use of the national defense waiver provision that already exists in the GATT Treaty, and applies to the WTO. This article, article 21 of the GATT, has never been used by any nation state, but remains available to be triggered if the Congress finds some aspect of our growing relationship with China on the trade account which adversely affects our national security and needs to be stopped or somehow moderated. In addition to these matters, there is also growing concern over the activities of China in transferring missile technologies to other nations, affecting the security of the United States and, also, our Asian allies. The proliferation of such technologies to Pakistan is the subject of ongoing discussions between the United States and the Government of China. Unfortunately, the Chinese have given no sign that they intend to halt their highly dangerous trade in missile technologies and components. Many Senators have expressed their concern over this practice, including the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. It is my intention, and my expectation, and it is the intention of my very close and dear colleague, Senator Warner--it is our intention and expectation that the U.S.-China Security Review Commission will investigate, report and make recommendations on Chinese trade in missile components, which affects our long-term security and that of our Asian allies. In this amendment by Mr. Warner and myself, both paragraphs (E), dealing with military actions taken by the Chinese Government, and (J), requiring an overall assessment of the state of the security challenges presented by China to the United States provide ample mandate to the commission to conduct such investigations on a regular basis. I will be happy to yield the floor to my colleague, Mr. Warner. I cannot yield the floor to another Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Otherwise, the Congress is at the mercy of an administration--the administration--for information.

Mr. BYRD. In this case, this commission will report to the Congress, so we do not have to depend upon information from the Executive; we have our own.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the clerk read the other cosponsors of the amendment, in addition to Mr. Warner and myself.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am seriously concerned about Section 910 of S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Section 910 would effect the transfer of responsibility for the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program from the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the Secretary of Defense and would amend the limitation on federal funding for the National Guard Challenge program to limit only Department of Defense funding. This language removes the National Guard Bureau from the ``chain of command'' and from its statutory role as the channel of communication between the federal government and the states (10 U.S.C. Sec. 10501). Youth ChalleNGe exists in 25 states and is a federal/state partnership program. While there is partial federal funding (which is capped by law at $62.5 million per year), the ChalleNGe staff members are state employees who meet state teacher and counselor certification requirements. All legally binding cooperative agreements currently in place are between the Governors and the Chief, National Guard Bureau. ChalleNGe is a highly successful program that takes at-risk youths and gives them the opportunity to turn their lives around and become productive members of their communities. Since the program was established, with my assistance in 1991, more than 4,500 young Americans have graduated. Of this number, more than 66% have earned their GED or high school diploma; more than 12% entered the military, and more than 16% enrolled in college. ChalleNGe is a program in demand by the states. If it were not for the cap on spending, more states would have a ChalleNGe program. Transferring authority from the National Guard to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs could only have a negative impact and upset a program that is operating extremely well under the auspices of the National Guard Bureau. It would add another layer of bureaucracy and require the State National Guard programs to relate through an altogether new ``chain of command'' for the Youth ChalleNGe program, while maintaining the existing ``chain of command'' for all other National Guard activities. On June 16th of this year, I participated in the graduation ceremony of the cadets of the Mountaineer ChalleNGe program at Camp Dawson, West Virginia. In all my years of delivering commencement speeches and high school diplomas, I can say without reservation that this was the most impressive group of students that I have ever encountered. The graduates sat at full attention throughout the event, with obvious pride in their hard-earned achievements and serious commitment to a future on the right path. Such transformation can not be achieved by mere bootcamp exercises alone. It takes a tough-love approach with caring and compassionate instructors who want to see the lives of these troubled youth turned around forever. The National Guard offers these young people the very virtues--leadership, followership, community service, job skills, health and nutrition, and physical education--that are in keeping with the Guard's tradition of adding value to America and it certainly showed in West Virginia. Let us not punish this fine organization which is doing an exceptional job in helping youth in-need.

Mr. BYRD. I had intended to offer an amendment to clarify this issue. However, I believe that the comments of the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Committee have helped clear up this matter. I hope the conference report will further clarify the matter. conveyance authority for utility systems

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators. And I thank my colleague, Mr. Warner.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection on this side.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we in the minority share the feelings expressed by the distinguished manager of the bill. We, too, yield to the eloquence and the grace of the distinguished Senator from Maine.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee and I are here on the floor. We are very eager to have Senators who want to call up amendments come to the floor and call up their amendments. I urge Senators: Make haste and come while the time is running and ripe. At some point we have to call up our amendments or go to third reading. It is a little early to go to third reading, but I would plead with Senators not to wait. This is an excellent opportunity. If I had an amendment to the bill, I would be eager to see a moment such as this when other Senators are not seeking recognition, and I would be eager to come to the floor, work out my amendment with the two managers, and be on my way back to the office and other things. So I make that urgent plea because at some point, if Senators do not come to the floor with their amendments, I may move to go to third reading and get the yeas and nays on that. Of course, if that motion carries, there can be no more amendments. I am not saying I will do that yet, but there will come a time. That is a good fiddler's tune: There will come a time, there will come a time someday. This is your chance, now. Staffs of Senators who are working on amendments, this is your chance. Get your Senator here and let's get the amendments and get votes. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.